Re: "Conlang" and "Artlang" in German
| From: | Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, January 22, 2009, 16:01 |
|---|
Hallo!
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:04:19 +0100, Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Jörg Rhiemeier writes:
> >...
> >> Hehe. My esthetics have to rest when I talk about Conlangs in German.
> >
> > Why? Why use awkward anglicisms if one can resort to nice German
> > words? ...
>
> Because some are missing.
But not many. The linguistic terminology exists in German;
many terms can be straightforwardly translated; there are
not many that are "missing". The only one I can think of
right now is "engelang", for which I haven't found a
satisfactory German equivalent yet.
> [...]
> >... and terms such as 'self-segregating morphology' can be
> >translated (_selbstabgrenzende Morphologie_ ...
>
> That's exactly the problem: it *can* be translated that way. But
> 'self-segregating morphology' is *the* term for that beast, while your
> German example is merely one attempt to find a German name for it.
True, _selbstabgrenzende Morphologie_ is a neologism that is
not yet common usage, but it can easily be recognized as an
equivalent to _self-segregating morphology_, I think.
I thus see no reason to use such awkward Denglish sentences
as "Meine Loglang verfügt über self-segregating morphology".
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf